Re: [office-formula] Key Issues

[Daniel Carrera <daniel.carrera@zmsl.com>]

robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> If we want, is sufficient for us to define ODF formulas period, 
> and leave it to a future specification to define subset and superset 
> profiles for various other uses.  This could even be done by vendors or 
> on an industry basis,

Well, spreadsheets are a mature industry. In a sense, vendors have 
already decided best practices. So, we could follow your approach 
without waiting a few years. For example, take the intersection of most 
interesting spread sheets and call that "basic". Take a spreadsheet that 
focuses on the scientific field (Gnumeric? - not sure) and use that to 
get the "science" package. You get the idea.

I can't decide where I stand on the levels vs packages issue. I can see 
good arguments for both sides. I'll comment more when I have something 
meaningful to comment.

> So maybe we can start by standardizing a way for implementations to 
> define profiles, but we don't standardize on any profiles ourselves?

If we know of a current implementation that focuses on a specific area, 
we could ask them to submit a profile now-ish.

> Think of C/C++.  When C was standardized, it had a single set of 
> required libraries.  But eventually there emerged subsets for embedded 
> uses and supersets for more specific uses.  Ditto for HTML.  

I understand. I think spreadsheets are pretty standarized already 
though. They've been around for a while. So we can define packages now.

Cheers,
Daniel.
-- 
      /\/`) http://opendocumentfellowship.org
     /\/_/
    /\/_/ I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for
    \/_/  stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels
    /     off of everything and let the problem solve itself?